Gay Marriage Stuff
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
antichrist said:
There we go, we are now really getting down to it. This is where it gets complicated and fun. Mob rule? Jefferson said that democracy was nothing more than mob rule, that it was merely 51% of the people telling the other 49% what to do, or something along those lines.
No, not mob rule. But when the vote is cast, the vote is cast, and that is democracy. Do the sexual acts of the people in the privacy of their homes even fit into a discussion on law, let alone the purview of law? No, of course not. And the courts would have the right to throw down that law, it falls completely outside of the jurisdiction of the constitution... which is exactly what I am arguing in regards to gay marriage. In the case you sited, the law is so far outside of constitutional bounds that the courts should really just dismiss it as being outside of their jurisdiction. In doing so, they show that the law is outside of Constitutional bounds and should be abolished. In practice, they would, and should of course find that the law is unconstitutional. Not because it deals with something that should be legal, but because the constitution simply does not have anything to do with those issues.
In throwing out a law of this type, do they, or do they not make a de facto law to the contrary of the original law? -- that is the question at the foundation of this entire argument.
I argue that they should not.
If a law is passed which has nothing to do with constitutional law, the courts should not hear the case, but instead let the people of the state or jurisdiction eventually work it out themselves. I argue that gay marriage is not a right under the law, neither is heterosexual marriage for that matter, that the court should have nothing to do with such things and that the frustration of the people with their state and local governments on such things should prod them to take the matter into the private sector -- marriage should be a private, religious institution. Isn't it obvious that the government is involved in it for two basic reasons; control and taxes. The government, the courts, the city of San Fransisco, the states have no business in the private, sexual, love affairs of the people. My own marriage license is a scam, it always was right from the beginning.
When the people of California passed that law to ban gay marriage, they may have been just as wrong to do so as the court that eventually overturned the law. Neither is constitutional. The people who, in this particular case, are supporting gay marriage are really asking for the government's approval of their private acts -- which is a pretty sorry state to see America in, if you ask me. It is a symptom that the Left deals with daily, the placement of government in the God-shaped hole in their lives. (And if you don't believe in god, at least put your Country, your Family, yourself into that hole -- anything but Government, anything that is less likely to let you down and take advantage of you.)
So when it comes to gay marriage, I ask you... what is the real reason for this gigantic push to gain this so called right? Is it really to get a piece of paper? Is it really to get some elusive "right" that no one can actually show to be missing? It is a scam. It is nothing more than a political power grab at the expense of the homosexual populace who think they have just pulled off a human rights coup. If homosexual marriage is a human right, I dare say we have lost a sense of what our rights actually are.
Ben, your last post is so detached from reality, reason and any comprehension of our form of government (not to mention invalidating your entire argument) I can't even be bothered to respond to it except to ask you to just answer my question.
I truly feel sorry for the kids in your history classes if that's the sort of thing you are teaching them.
edited to take the 's' off of "thing" in the last sentence
I'm guessing that that's your position, based on your ramblings.
I truly feel sorry for the kids in your history classes if that's the sort of thing you are teaching them.
edited to take the 's' off of "thing" in the last sentence
Last edited:
Next year it will be two wifes, then 3 little boys, then a goat and all you enablers will say its ok. Look for the man having a relationship with a blow up doll applying for a license next week
or perhaps you should pose your question in the form of a letter to the editor:
http://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/5/entertainment/53
http://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/5/entertainment/53
After reading it again, I'm going to attempt a translation of this post:
Trying to make sense of it, I see you saying the following:
* The sexual acts of people in the privacy of their homes does not fit into the purview of law
* The courts have the right to throw down a law prohibiting oral sex.
* A law prohibiting oral sex falls outside the jurisdiction of the constitution.
And
* You make the same case in regards to gay marriage
Ergo...
* The sexual acts of people in the privacy of their homes does not fit into the purview of law
* The courts have the right to throw down a law prohibiting gay marriage
* A law prohibiting gay marriage falls outside the jurisdiction of the constitution.
While your logic on things "falling outside the jurisdiction of the constitution" is a bit flawed... you just made an argument supporting the courts striking down that law as they did. Do you realize that?
But here you say the case should be dismissed, instead.
Or maybe you don't... now you say the law should be abolished.
And there you confirm that it should be abolished, as it is unconstitutional.
So you do believe it is within the court's power to strike a law down as unconstitutional.
So... with that logic... anything that the constitution does not have anything to do with... should be stricken down as unconstitutional.
At this point, I am starting to get lost as to what exactly you are trying to say, and your point to saying it. You've already said you disagree with the court ruling that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. But in this post, up till this point, you are giving arguments supporting the court ruling. At the same time, your argument in favor happens to be flawed, and full of tortured logic. Bizarre.
This notion of "a law which has nothing to do with constitutional law" really demands further explanation.
The Constitution grants powers to the government. A law which has nothing to do with constitutional law... would be one not included within the bounds of power granted to the government. Which means that it is not within the government's power to pass. Which in turn means it is unconstitutional. Which means it is the court's duty to strike it down.
OK
Actually, it is. If it were not (in the form of a legal status) this case would not exist.
OK, I agree with that. But "should" doesn't mean "does", even if you think it "should".
Please clarify. Are you saying it should be a private institution AND a religious institution? Or are you saying that it should be a religious institution that is private? I would agree completely with the former, and strongly disagree with the latter. That is some serious ambiguity.
This statement, and the logic behind it, is completely and utterly broken and nonfunctional. It contradicts itself in mid-stride. If they were "wrong to do so", it is the duty of the court to overturn it... as you so ineloquently argued yourself earlier in this same post. Which means they weren't wrong to overturn it. But if they were not wrong in overturning it, and the passing of the law was just as wrong, that means it wasn't wrong to pass, in which case the court would have been wrong to overturn it, in which case OH CRAP I'M TRAPPED IN A LOGICAL MOBIUS STRIP AND I CAN'T GET OUT!
So... passing the law was unconstitutional. But removing the law is also unconstitutional... therefore unconstitutional laws stay on the books, and must be followed? That's nuts.
Whoah... persons with left-leaning politics are all atheists? That's pretty far out there, dude.
Yes. It's a legal document. Kind of like a title to a car, or a deed to land, an official birth certificate, or other such important papers.
OK, I'll assume "at the expense of" is a relic from an earlier statement that was later rewritten, and as a simple mistake.
So, what is the motive behind this "power grab"? Is there another step, or end-goal to be feared? If so... why?
Actually... scratch that. Don't answer it. I fear that asking you an open-ended question like might be seen as trolling. Don't want to be a troll.
On that note, I think I'm done, or at least should be. People seem to be sick of this topic. I'm certainly not helping... maybe I should just let it go, too.
RBBailey said:
Trying to make sense of it, I see you saying the following:
* The sexual acts of people in the privacy of their homes does not fit into the purview of law
* The courts have the right to throw down a law prohibiting oral sex.
* A law prohibiting oral sex falls outside the jurisdiction of the constitution.
And
* You make the same case in regards to gay marriage
Ergo...
* The sexual acts of people in the privacy of their homes does not fit into the purview of law
* The courts have the right to throw down a law prohibiting gay marriage
* A law prohibiting gay marriage falls outside the jurisdiction of the constitution.
While your logic on things "falling outside the jurisdiction of the constitution" is a bit flawed... you just made an argument supporting the courts striking down that law as they did. Do you realize that?
But here you say the case should be dismissed, instead.
Or maybe you don't... now you say the law should be abolished.
And there you confirm that it should be abolished, as it is unconstitutional.
So you do believe it is within the court's power to strike a law down as unconstitutional.
So... with that logic... anything that the constitution does not have anything to do with... should be stricken down as unconstitutional.
At this point, I am starting to get lost as to what exactly you are trying to say, and your point to saying it. You've already said you disagree with the court ruling that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. But in this post, up till this point, you are giving arguments supporting the court ruling. At the same time, your argument in favor happens to be flawed, and full of tortured logic. Bizarre.
This notion of "a law which has nothing to do with constitutional law" really demands further explanation.
The Constitution grants powers to the government. A law which has nothing to do with constitutional law... would be one not included within the bounds of power granted to the government. Which means that it is not within the government's power to pass. Which in turn means it is unconstitutional. Which means it is the court's duty to strike it down.
OK
Actually, it is. If it were not (in the form of a legal status) this case would not exist.
OK, I agree with that. But "should" doesn't mean "does", even if you think it "should".
Please clarify. Are you saying it should be a private institution AND a religious institution? Or are you saying that it should be a religious institution that is private? I would agree completely with the former, and strongly disagree with the latter. That is some serious ambiguity.
This statement, and the logic behind it, is completely and utterly broken and nonfunctional. It contradicts itself in mid-stride. If they were "wrong to do so", it is the duty of the court to overturn it... as you so ineloquently argued yourself earlier in this same post. Which means they weren't wrong to overturn it. But if they were not wrong in overturning it, and the passing of the law was just as wrong, that means it wasn't wrong to pass, in which case the court would have been wrong to overturn it, in which case OH CRAP I'M TRAPPED IN A LOGICAL MOBIUS STRIP AND I CAN'T GET OUT!
So... passing the law was unconstitutional. But removing the law is also unconstitutional... therefore unconstitutional laws stay on the books, and must be followed? That's nuts.
Whoah... persons with left-leaning politics are all atheists? That's pretty far out there, dude.
Yes. It's a legal document. Kind of like a title to a car, or a deed to land, an official birth certificate, or other such important papers.
OK, I'll assume "at the expense of" is a relic from an earlier statement that was later rewritten, and as a simple mistake.
So, what is the motive behind this "power grab"? Is there another step, or end-goal to be feared? If so... why?
Actually... scratch that. Don't answer it. I fear that asking you an open-ended question like might be seen as trolling. Don't want to be a troll.
On that note, I think I'm done, or at least should be. People seem to be sick of this topic. I'm certainly not helping... maybe I should just let it go, too.
:rofl: Jammin, I'm going to start calling you Job. :rofl:
I agree 100% with you, just didn't have the patience to wade through the "logic".
I agree 100% with you, just didn't have the patience to wade through the "logic".
So you mean if I see someone and thnk to myself, "Hmmm...I think that person is of Italian decent". That means they are leading a "Italian lifestyle"?Blue said:
Interesting.
Wow, that is about 4 kinds of stupid in one breath.D90DC said:
Two wives, anyone that brave can have a go at it, as long as they are consenting adults.
little boys, in any combination- not so much, children cannot give educated consent. No go.
Likewise with goats, they cannot consent.
Blow up dolls, now that is just good clean latex lovin'.
Still, none of these will have any effect on straight people. Have white marriages been tossed on the rocks because Heidi Klum is married to Seal?
On a positive note, when these discussions get brought up in my class the reaction is no big deal. If a 7th grader can see the logic, well...
It's a sad way to live a life, worried about what kind of sex other people are having...
:banghead:
:banghead:
I'm moron because you're unable to articulate what Ben meant by "gay lifestyle"? Or because you don't know what you meant? Or did you mean Ben is a moron?Blue said:
Either way that seems to be a rather odd perspective.
I guess I missed the other fight or fights. As heated as this discussion has been, that may be a good thing.
However, I read this one last night and a few of you had me laughing so hard I thought I would fall off my chair (the blow up doll marriage was one of them).
To the best of my knowledge, I have only met 2 "gay" individuals. One was a guy I worked with that was a whiny crybaby. I could not stand him. It had nothing to do with him being gay. It was because he was such an entitled manipulative wimp who cared little about the other people I worked with. Thankfully, I rarely had to interact with him... so, I basically got along just fine pretending he did not exist.
The other person I met was one of our Dweb members, DiscoJen. After meeting her, I almost posted about it here... but, did not feel like it was appropriate at the time. I learned something about myself that night... I learned that I had some "incorrect" preconceived notions.
I met Jen (and her former girlfreind) at an off road gathering. Of course, I knew ahead of time that Jen was gay and that she was quite boisterous and brazen in her posts. Because of that, I'm not sure what I expected when I met her.
What shocked me silly was that when I met her, she was very surprisingly normal (with the exception of some wacky haircut). Even more surprising, she and her former girlfreind seemed just like any normal "couple".
One of the thinks that struck me the most was that I could discern some tension between them and I could tell that here girlfreind was not happy that night. Her girlfreind was acting like a jealous wife and did not appear to want Jen to interact with the other people at the event. As weird as that may sound, that was a "wow" experience for me.
Although I have always been non judgmental, my "preconceived notions" never went beyond my thinking that same sex couples being togther was... well... unusual. I had never stopped to consider that they might be just like "normal" people with "normal" problems. It's not that I'm that dense or uncaring, I've just never been exposed to it enough to really warrant my thinking about it.
Personally, I can't understand a woman wanting to be with another woman. That certainly is not for me. Nor can I understand a man wanting to be with a man. I can't even wrap my mind around the gay marriage issue. At this point, it makes no sense to me.
Even so, I remain empathetic, compassionate, non judgmental, and very aware that I don't know everything.
Especially these days...
I am now living in a "college town" and I have seen some things that greatly sadden me. Mainly... an abundance of young boys/men, anorexic looking, wearing make up, extremely feminine. Others say they are "bi", whatever that means to them. What they display more than anything is an extreme hopelessness and a look of being totally lost... they sure do not look happy... zero confidence... heads down, hair covering their faces, they do not look or act "normal" in any way, shape, or form. Quite alarmingly, they look like the most depressed young men I have ever seen in my life.
Because of that, my thoughts on the subject tend to veer away from the "gay marriage" issue to "who is going to help these young kids?".
Just my 2 cents.
However, I read this one last night and a few of you had me laughing so hard I thought I would fall off my chair (the blow up doll marriage was one of them).
To the best of my knowledge, I have only met 2 "gay" individuals. One was a guy I worked with that was a whiny crybaby. I could not stand him. It had nothing to do with him being gay. It was because he was such an entitled manipulative wimp who cared little about the other people I worked with. Thankfully, I rarely had to interact with him... so, I basically got along just fine pretending he did not exist.
The other person I met was one of our Dweb members, DiscoJen. After meeting her, I almost posted about it here... but, did not feel like it was appropriate at the time. I learned something about myself that night... I learned that I had some "incorrect" preconceived notions.
I met Jen (and her former girlfreind) at an off road gathering. Of course, I knew ahead of time that Jen was gay and that she was quite boisterous and brazen in her posts. Because of that, I'm not sure what I expected when I met her.
What shocked me silly was that when I met her, she was very surprisingly normal (with the exception of some wacky haircut). Even more surprising, she and her former girlfreind seemed just like any normal "couple".
One of the thinks that struck me the most was that I could discern some tension between them and I could tell that here girlfreind was not happy that night. Her girlfreind was acting like a jealous wife and did not appear to want Jen to interact with the other people at the event. As weird as that may sound, that was a "wow" experience for me.
Although I have always been non judgmental, my "preconceived notions" never went beyond my thinking that same sex couples being togther was... well... unusual. I had never stopped to consider that they might be just like "normal" people with "normal" problems. It's not that I'm that dense or uncaring, I've just never been exposed to it enough to really warrant my thinking about it.
Personally, I can't understand a woman wanting to be with another woman. That certainly is not for me. Nor can I understand a man wanting to be with a man. I can't even wrap my mind around the gay marriage issue. At this point, it makes no sense to me.
Even so, I remain empathetic, compassionate, non judgmental, and very aware that I don't know everything.
Especially these days...
I am now living in a "college town" and I have seen some things that greatly sadden me. Mainly... an abundance of young boys/men, anorexic looking, wearing make up, extremely feminine. Others say they are "bi", whatever that means to them. What they display more than anything is an extreme hopelessness and a look of being totally lost... they sure do not look happy... zero confidence... heads down, hair covering their faces, they do not look or act "normal" in any way, shape, or form. Quite alarmingly, they look like the most depressed young men I have ever seen in my life.
Because of that, my thoughts on the subject tend to veer away from the "gay marriage" issue to "who is going to help these young kids?".
Just my 2 cents.
This guy can't wait for that time to come...:ack:D90DC said:
http://www.ourmidland.com/articles/2008/06/17/police_and_courts/1145168.txt
uke: